Debating Identity…

During, Simon. “Debating Identity” In Cultural Studies: A Critical Introduction, Routledge: London, 2005, 145-152.

I am young, female, Australian, a student, middle class, brunette…. and the list goes on. Which of these identities is the most concrete? What parts of society and its sub-cultures do these labels slot me into?

The reading by During this week discusses the various identities an individual can adopt or be labeled with and in turn the way in which the individual, their identity and society interrelate with each other. Our identities differentiate us as individuals but, in doing so, also categorise us with others that share the same trait or traits. This raises the question of whether in identifying one’s-self are we in turn reducing our individuality? In saying this, it seems like an impossible feat to be ‘un-labeled’ by a species that focuses immensely on social relationships.

Identities in our society do, however, remain transient and there is much room for shifts and changes within and around them. They both gain and lose prominence and priority through the course of time and space as examined by During. In various cultures different identities are of different importance and prominence, for example in Muslim (religious label) culture one’s gender is of a greater importance than one’s job title whereas in Western culture job titles often reign supreme.The concept of identity allows us to make some sense of incredibly complex cultural social networks and our own internal states.

The plethora of ‘identities’ that are allocated to us throughout our lives moulds us into who we are, whether we like the idea of it or not. Society creates categories for each person and the categories an individual decides to accept as part of their perceived identity becomes internalised thus becoming part of who they are within themselves.

To eliminate ‘identity’ is impossible! Even a ‘recluse’ or ‘hermit’ may think they have escaped the grasps of the ‘labelling machine’ that is society, but in doing so have we not just named them and identified them regardless? Our very existence is one of categorization and identity. We as individuals need to be switched on to our given identities and realise that they do not make who we are as a whole, but rather contribute to it.

Multimodal Media and discourse.

Macken-Horarik, M. “The children overboard affair” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 26.2 (2003), 1-16.

According to Macken-Horarik ‘multimodal’ media is the most common type of western ‘news’ in today’s global society. Basically every front-page story uses interplay of both image and verbiage that works to shape our understanding and perception of the story at hand. Although this multimodal information does seem to create a greater understanding of a given event, the way in which these two medias are perceived together rather than as separate ‘stories’ can aid, for better or worse, the social discourse of society.

As Macken-Horarik notes, the “Children Overboard” case is a perfect example of how a political story has had a major effect on the discourse of Australian attitudes towards refugees. The verbiage itself was accusatory towards the refugees but, with the release of photos depicting children in the water and a navy officer rescuing them, now known to be from a totally separate instance, the combined impact on Australian perceptions was massive.

Even if these accounts have now been proven to be false, or supposedly ‘misreported’, the fact is that the text provided what many people thought of as fact and the image was left burnt on our memories. Whether intentional or not these types of multimodal media reports continue to have huge effects on discourse in society.

Through Macken-Horarik’s reading, the effect language and pictures have on society’s discourse can be seen not only in their relationship to one another, but also in the tools applied to these media. Our opinions are also influenced by the ways in which the ‘social actors’ of the piece have been portrayed to us by the journalist or media producer.

In many of the news reports that have predominantly influenced discourse, the reporter uses ‘genericisation’ in describing the participant(s). Genericisation, along with the allocation of essentialism (i.e. traits specific to groups of people), leaves the audience to view a whole group as theoretically accountable for the actions of an individual. We can also see in the case study of the “Children Overboard” that the navy officers were assigned a functionalist role, engendering a sense of duty and reason for their actions.

These tools of representation and grammar are deployed in every scope of media available to us. They can be used not only to ‘paint’ the most accurate picture possible, but also as a means to coerce us, the public, towards a certain viewpoint. Whether these coercions are intentional does not change the influence this multimodal media has on the discourse of society’s attitudes towards others and all facets of life.

‘Lessons in Grammar.’ Lets not scramble the facts!

Lukin, Annabelle. “Lessons in Grammar: how ideology shapes the report writing of war.” Education Links 66/67 (2003), 18-20.

With the global emergence of communication technologies there are vastly more media outlets reporting to us about world issues and events on a daily, if not hourly, basis. When sifting through scores of articles on a particular event it is fascinating to see the way in which one concrete happening can be explained and portrayed to the public from so many different angles especially with reference to the use of grammar and language, as examined by Lukin in “Lessons in Grammar: How Ideology Shapes the reporting of War”.

Lukin explains that one of the main areas of manipulation in report writing is the grammatical role assigned to a participant, whether that be acting, “actor” or being acted upon, the “goal”. In the case study of Ali, “the human interest story of the Iraq war” we are able to see the impact of this grammatical role on our perception of the story. We are either set up with the idea of the boy as both the actor and goal which subversively associates his loss as being brought on by himself, or in the case of Fisk’s article, ‘war’ is the actor and Ali is the one that has been impacted on. Both of these assignments of role, whether purposeful or not, have the potential to change the meaning of the account being reported.

Lukin’s writing allows us to gain a much greater insight into the complex ways in which a war report can be moulded and, in some cases, manipulated purely by the placement and use of language whether this is an intentional or an unconscious way of writing. I can certainly agree with this notion of our perceptions changing due to grammar use in articles; however, I am uncertain that these complex meanings would be greatly evident to the majority of the readers.

I think it is important in a time of technological media change to remain objective and selective in our interpretation of the ‘news’ we are exposed to through this array of perspectives.This article serves to reinforce the idea that we, as writers and audiences, must be aware of the subtlety of writing techniques and the powerful influence of language as a tool.

We must try to be sure not to scramble or confuse the facts.

Media gods…

Media and the notion of the ‘machine’ have almost reached the point of becoming a new belief system for modern society….

A network of endless information capacity where we look for ‘the answers’…But aren’t these answers self generated and pre-programmed into our ‘media gods’?

How far will the machines capacity to think really extend?

 

As Dylan Moran said:

“Soon we’ll be walking through the front door, the fridge will take our picture, the radio will tell us what to do and where to go and we’ll be having what the egg beater wants us to have for dinner”…

 

Has media become a modern day religion?

The Extended Audience

Couldry, Nick. “The Extended Audience: Scanning the Horizon” In Gillespie, Marie. Ed. Media Audiences. Berkshire: Open University Press, 2005, 184-196 & 210-220.

As explained in Couldry’s The Extended Audience through the constant technological changes occurring in media and its distribution, the audiences’ role has shifted to a much more active one not only in the viewing of media but also in the production and altering of media content. This technological shift has thus caused a ‘social/spatial change’ from ‘mass audience’, as quoted by Abercrombie and Longhurst, to an extended audience with access to media in all facets of life, greatly increasing the reach of media and recreating what used to be regarded as an audience into a much more individual experience.

As Couldry argues, audience participation and their role have become so diverse that is it becoming difficult to define what it is to be a modern audience. When our everyday lives have become so intrinsically connected to media it is almost impossible to differentiate between when we are and are not actually participating as an audience, whether that be active or passive.

With this emergence of ‘active audiences’ there has been a shift from centralised hierarchical power of media production companies to a more horizontal give and take relationship between the audience and these ‘big wigs’! The audiences’ norms, values and beliefs in a society shape the content of media, however the way in which this content is portrayed to us and what is seen as worthy to broadcast is still up to ‘them’! With such a wide range of media forms available to us as a mobile audience through sites such as Youtube we are now melding the roles of producer, actor and audience into one.

However, although there appears to be a diminution of producers’ control over content and access as Couldry mentions, for some reason, we still see these ‘extraordinary’ places of media production maintaining a hold on the media industry by their ability to generate alternate revenue channels through the creation of ‘tourist’ destinations and the ever present placement of subliminal product endorsement.

Couldry’s reading demonstrates the ever-changing relationship between the audience and media. As media becomes more dispersed and accessible, our role as an audience extends to almost all platforms of everyday life. This shift has greatly increased our role in not only the viewing of media, but in our own interaction with and contribution to it. However, in saying this, every step we take towards taking the power back from the ‘industry’ seems to be counter-acted by industry produces finding new ways of profiting from media, thus maintaining their strangle hold on media production and distribution.